Yes men of all classes and races hold power of the women of the same race and class as they themselves. Of course, that is well documented and understood. But it's the origins of this that need studying.
While the battle lines have been drawn around widely differing points of view, socialists most often find themselves alone in challenging the assumption that women?s oppression is due, to a greater or lesser extent, to men?s long-standing need to dominate and oppress women. I simply don't think men are biologically driven to oppress women.
The argument of biology is an assumption held both by traditional male chauvinists seeking to prove their right to dominate women (and also a vaguely defined tendency in women to nurture and therefore submit to domination), as well as many feminists seeking to prove much the same thing. The argument is rarely a purely biological one over testosterone levels. Yet, whether stated or implied, assumptions about biology and human nature lurk just beneath the surface of this debate.
In what way does that way of thinking challenge gender stereotypes.
A more rational response is that our means of production and reproduction, the means of exchange and wealth accumulation have shaped not just our thinking, our experiences, the way we live and behave but to some extent even our biology. (trans, men becoming infertile due to environmental issues etc, men becoming more "metro") it has led to women being a class within a class and the most oppressed within every class.
Men of all classes have it better than their female counterparts, the capitalist class have made a bargain with the working class male, that he too should have dominance over the women of his own class. But to suggest that upper middle class women "doth their caps" to working class men is laughable.